Rechtssociologie en recht-en-samenlevingstudies hebben behoefte aan de ontwikkeling van een eigen identiteit, die hen onder meer onderscheidt van het groeiende juridisch onderzoek waarbij empirische methoden gehanteerd worden. Deze identiteit kent vijf verbindende elementen: excellente (primaire of secundaire) empirische methodologie, kritisch, nuttig, blijvend geïnformeerd door theorie uit een inclusieve sociologie, en afwijzend tegenover reductionistische benaderingen van de werkelijkheid. Als een van deze eigenschappen ontbreekt, is er geen sprake van volwaardige rechtssociologie. Als alle eigenschappen aanwezig zijn, is de rechtssociologie bijzonder goed uitgerust om de actuele veranderingen in recht en samenleving te bestuderen. In die context kan de ontwikkeling en verspreiding van een eigen identiteit, die de vijf eigenschappen incorporeert, kansen bieden om de rechtssociologie een meer centrale positie toe te kennen in de rechtenfaculteiten.

In the course of it short existence, Socio-legal studies (SLS) in the Anglo-Saxon world has burgeoned into a rich and variegated field. Reviewing it is therefore a challenging task. I begin with some general reflections and an outline of recent developments. Although these indicate an extremely vibrant field, concerns have been expressed for the future. In my discussion of these, I argue that our analysis of SLS needs to be historicised since the emergence of SLS is connected to processes of social modernization and democratization. The erosion of these processes by neo-liberal discourses and policies is the background to a discussion of my own research into the impact of the cuts to civil legal aid in England and Wales. This leads me to conclude that the fundamental dissonance between neo-liberal rationality and social science may portend a difficult future, in particular for empirical work; however, I note too that other developments such as the ongoing juridification of society and new social media may make continued SL engagement irresistible.

What’s the significance of sociology of law in Europe? Before we can answer this question, it’s even more important to consider the reverse question: what’s the significance of Europe in sociology of law? European sociology of law has been very productive, but it has also become increasingly out of touch. Unlike the early years of the discipline, contemporary European law and society research is no longer a mirror of European society. There are three main reasons for this development. First, there’s a strong pull of the policy audience. Second, some of the most important studies in European sociology of law borrow their theories and concepts from previous work in the United States. And finally, most researchers are concerned with studying law and society in their own country, but only very few studies look at law and society from a transnational perspective. To fix these cracks in the mirror, we need more ‘Europe’ in European sociology of law. Similar to the work of the founding fathers of the discipline, sociology of law should once again become a reflection of society. Not for reasons of nostalgia, but because this will secure the future of European law and society research.

In this article the authors use empirical data from the Dutch Organised Crime Monitor to give empirical insight into the investments of organised crime offenders in legal economy. Using a dataset of 1,196 individual investments, they look into what kind of assets offenders purchase and where these assets are located. The authors use the empirical results to assess the tenability of different theoretical perspectives and assumptions that are present in the literature on money laundering and organised crime: the standard economic approach, the criminal infiltration approach and the social opportunity structure. The results of this study show that offenders predominantly invest in their home country and that their investments consist of tangible, familiar assets such as residences and other real estate and companies from well-known sectors. Investments such as bonds as well as stocks in companies in which offenders are not personally involved, were only found in a small number of cases. To put it differently: offenders usually stay close to home with their investments. Based on these results, the concept of social opportunity structure seems to be best suited to understand offenders’ investment choices.

Dutch policy makers, as elsewhere, have a strong belief in the effectiveness of asset recovery legislation. There are high expectations concerning the amounts of crime money to be collected, and the collection thereof would enable theauthorities to tackle serious, organized crime and fill the treasury. However, the results of the authors’ empirical research into the actual execution of ‘recovery orders’ show a different image. The majority of asset recovery cases concerns cases with low payment obligations (under € 5,000), indicating that mainly ‘smaller fishes’ are targeted. In general, the collection of crime money proves to be a difficult endeavour. Large amounts are not collected and there are long execution times. Policy makers who publicly announce high expectations, and who budget the expected incomes from asset recovery, do not practice evidence-based policy making and give leeway to false hopes which then require new (legislative) measures.

Dynamic predictors of periods of incarceration across the life course of female prisoners in the Netherlands were examined, inspired by a Gendered Pathways to Offending framework. Through life course calendars and surveys 397 female prisoners were interviewed. Women who were employed, received benefits, experienced childbirth, or were involved with substance abusing partners were less likely to be incarcerated one year later. Women whose parents had divorced, were addicted to hard drugs, worked as prostitutes, were homeless, had debts, had income from crime or a criminal partner, or received treatment for psychological problems were at increased risk for incarceration one year later.

In this article the authors compare Belgian and Dutch (draft) regulation of mass damage claims, and notably the prominent place reserved for the collective amicable settlement of such claims. Though collective action for the recovery of damage is still not possible in the Netherlands, Dutch law does provide for the possibility of the court endorsing collectively agreed settlements, since 2005. One of most notorious settlements, i.e. the Dexia case, is discussed, illustrating how individual victims may retain their standing to sue in court, although in such cases the courts show a tendency to cling to the terms of the collective settlement just the same (‘reflex effect or shadow of the settlement’). Mediation in brokering such high profile settlements does not necessarily follow the vested principles of mediation in ‘regular’ one to one disputes.

De auteurs gaan in op de vraag hoe het kan dat toezichthouders risico’s niet zien, risico’s onderschatten of te laat ingrijpen om risico’s te verminderen. Dit hoeft niet altijd voort te komen uit een gebrek aan deskundigheid, professionaliteit of kennis. Psychologische processen kunnen de effectiviteit van het toezicht ondermijnen, zonder dat de toezichthouder het merkt. De effecten van zogenoemde biases mogen niet worden onderschat.

Toezichthouders concluderen te snel dat netwerkgebonden markten een natuurlijk monopolie zijn waarvoor regulering nodig is. Marktprocestheorieën leggen de nadruk op de betwistbaarheid van ieder monopolie, ook in infrastructurele markten. Het gevolg is dat regulering en toezicht meer op afstand geplaatst kunnen worden. De marktprocesbenadering is ook toepasbaar in Nederlandse markten, zoals de energie, de telecommunicatie, luchthavens en de loodsen.

In this article, the questions why scientific misconduct has become a subject of criminological research and how scientific misconduct relates to a production-oriented academic culture are examined. It is argued that the current academic career path produces an anomic academic culture. The authors further examine the slippery notion of the term ‘scientific misconduct’ and conclude that questions about the prevalence or increase of scientific misconduct are hardly answerable. They also point at a number of undesirable side-effects of the emerging culture of distrust and control in academia, amongst which socially disengaged, highly predictable and little innovative research. They end with a plea to recapture a truly academic culture.

The Dutch sociologist and lawyer Kees Schuyt worked as scientific researcher and professor of sociology for the University of Leiden and University of Amsterdam. He has written about forty books and many articles about the welfare state, the philosophy of social science and the sociology of law. Between 2006 and 2014 he was chairman of The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI). Recently he wrote the book Between fault and fraud. Integrity and dishonest behavior in scientific research. In this interview, Schuyt talks about the role of scientific integrity in his own career and specifically elaborates on dishonest behavior and scientific competition.

In this article I focus on the academic environment in which social psychologist Diederik Stapel worked and developed his career as a con academic. He published over 50 articles with fabricated data in top tier journals. This article is based on interviews with Stapel himself and document analysis. Especially, I pay attention to his socialization as an academic in his years at the University of Amsterdam, where he did his PhD (1986-2000). In my description of how social psychology developed in the nineties in Amsterdam it becomes clear that there was a strong emphasis on competition and publishing articles in top tier journals. Stapel conformed to this culture of competition and published almost as much as the two leading full professors of his department during the period 1995-2000. In the early nineties Stapel discovered that the use of questionable research procedures (QRPs) was common in social psychology. He realized that without using these procedures it was hardly possible to get good results and publish frequently in top tier journals. Though Stapel resented this partly and was disenchanted by this experience, he did integrate QRPs in his daily academic practice. He actually raised the issue of QRPs in a lecture in Oxford when he received the Jos Jaspars Early Career Award of the EAESP, but there was hardly any substantive response to his presentation. The academic culture in which Stapel developed his career can be described as ‘indifferent tolerant’. Though Stapel does refer to the circumstances which influenced his academic fraud, he does state that he himself is responsible for his massive scientific misconduct.

Scientific misconduct takes place at the heart of higher education organizations. Organizational culture (meso level) shapes scholars’ behaviors and perceptions (micro level) about what should be problematized while conducting research and teaching. In this paper it is argued that there are organizational mechanisms at place by which organizational goals (funding) and professional goals (recognition) become indistinguishable. The mechanisms are: pressure, loose social control, scarce resources and lack of alternatives. Scholars may strategically react to these mechanisms by accepting, fitting in, resisting or giving up. It is at the heart of these mechanisms and strategies that problematic behaviors may emerge.

In this article the authors focus upon the measures taken as a reaction against scientific fraud against the background of the contemporary science policy that turns the practice of science into a knowledge economy. In the light of the availability but obvious underuse of reactive legal means, they question the recourse to proactive ethical control and regulation of the scientific activities. They contend that such science policy is not so much the expression of a reaction against exceptional cases of scientific fraud, than of an endeavour to discipline and control scientist to the constraints of the knowledge economy. For the authors, however, the latter is the problem to be solved: another science policy is needed.

An increasingly large degree of ‘public craftsmanship’ is demanded from professionals working in neighborhoods where citizens actively participate in security issues. The central question in this article is what role these neighbourhood professionals – mostly civil servants, (community) police officers and welfare professionals – play in facilitating and supporting civic projects in the field of security, how they create their ‘own’ social order outside of the formal policy domain of the organizations involved, and how they keep the public interest in mind. On the basis of three types of neighbourhood based projects – Neighbourhood Watches, ‘The Neighbourhood Governs’, and Residential Budgets – questions about the improvising and ‘crafting’ work of professionals are explored in this article. Such work is much needed in order to successfully establish connections between the different parties involved, navigate between the interests of citizens and organizations, recruit civilians while simultaneously amending their aspirations and expectations, safeguard public interests and ensure the progress of projects. Some professionals back away from these additional tasks and responsibilities they are increasingly face with. In many neighbourhoods much more is required from professionals however than the traditional roles as they were once defined by police, welfare and municipal organizations. In particular, the ‘new’ crafting professionals need to be able to deal with unreasonable expectations of ‘angry citizens’ who tend to dominate citizen participation in local security issues, act impartially and be accountable to the larger public, show personality and street credibility, and, finally, be attentive to unequal outcomes with regard to the distribution of safety and security projects in neighborhoods and districts.